正在加载视频...
视频加载失败
BOOM 💥💥 Professor Stephen Evans just told us that NONE of OpenSAFELY's data has been verified by its own authors. None of those patients may be real. It's the tip of the iceberg of the COVID observational study scam uncovered in #PennGate. Not one single paper from Oxford can... show more
10 条评论
@OpenSAFELY Joined the ped0s at blue sky and scrubbed Accts?
@OpenSAFELY Watch the video. All of: OHDSI Israel UK Opensafely data is now unverified Surgisphere level junk. That is nearly all the influential studies supporting the COVID vaccines and enabling the #3tablets killer protocols
@OpenSAFELY It’s unraveling at warp speed
@OpenSAFELY Keep doing what you're doing Jikky. Love your tenacity!
@OpenSAFELY Can of killer worms. Open safely
@OpenSAFELY This is looking like fraud rather than (only???) incompetence and dereliction of duty, then! Is this whole matter being pursued legally, or are people waiting to see what comes out of the USA? @Cyandeceres @denisrancourt @MakisMD
@OpenSAFELY @Cyandeceres @denisrancourt @MakisMD If Surgisphere was retracted and considered to be fraud because their data was not able to be verified by the authors, which is what happened, then all of @Opensafely's and @OHDSI's similar publications should be considered the same. #PennGate
20 Disturbing Facts about OpenSAFELY: Undermining Public Trust: 1. Unverified Data: Professor Stephen Evans admitted that none of OpenSAFELY's data has been verified by its own authors, which significantly undermines trust in the research outcomes. 2. Lack of Transparency: The data used in OpenSAFELY's studies is not accessible for public or independent verification, fostering skepticism about the integrity of the research. 3. Potential Fabrication: There's a suggestion that the patient data might not be real, which could mean that studies influencing public health decisions were based on fabricated or synthetic data. 4. Conflict of Interest: The involvement of institutions like LSHTM and Oxford, heavily financed by pharmaceutical companies, raises concerns about bias in research outcomes. 5. Misleading Public Health Advice: The studies allegedly influenced public health policy, suggesting treatments like genetic therapies for respiratory infections, which could be based on unverified data, leading to public mistrust. 6. Data Laundering Claims: Allegations that NHS data was sent to a Chinese company TPP for processing and returned without a way to verify its integrity, suggesting manipulation or alteration of data. 7. Publication in Prestigious Journals: Papers were published in reputable journals like The Lancet without proper data verification, which typically should ensure data integrity, thus eroding trust in academic publishing. 8. Contradictory Findings: Claims that the studies contradict publicly available data on antibiotic prescriptions during the pandemic, suggesting manipulation of results to fit a narrative. 9. Speed of Publication: The rapid publication process of these studies, which usually takes longer, implies a potentially rushed and possibly compromised review process. 10. Public Health Consequences: The implication that these studies led to the denial of effective treatments like antibiotics for pneumonia, resulting in fatalities, severely impacts public trust in medical research. Violating Laws: 1. Data Protection Breach: Sending NHS patient data to a foreign company without explicit consent or proper anonymization could violate GDPR or similar UK data protection laws. 2. Lack of Consent: Processing personal health data without patient consent, especially when the data is not fully anonymized, breaches confidentiality laws and patient rights to privacy. 3. Misuse of Public Funds: If the funding from Wellcome Trust and Gates Foundation was used to produce misleading or unverifiable research, this could be seen as a misuse of charitable funds meant for public good. 4. Non-Compliance with Research Ethics: Failing to obtain ethical approval for data handling practices, especially when data is used for research purposes, violates research ethics guidelines. 5. Breach of Trust in Healthcare: The alleged manipulation of health data to support pharmaceutical interests over patient welfare could be seen as a breach of trust in the healthcare system's ethical standards. 6. Potential Fraud: Presenting unverified or potentially fabricated data as legitimate in scientific studies could constitute scientific fraud, especially when this data influences public health decisions. 7. Violation of Public Health Regulations: If studies influenced policy decisions without proper data validation, this could violate public health regulations requiring evidence-based decision-making. 8. Ignoring Opt-Out Requests: If patients who had opted out of having their data used for research found their data included in OpenSAFELY studies, this would violate patient consent protocols. 9. Misrepresentation in Legal Testimony: The admission in court about the lack of verification could imply misrepresentation if this was not disclosed in earlier legal or public health contexts. 10. Negligence in Data Handling: The handling of data in a manner that could not ensure its integrity or authenticity could be considered negligent, potentially violating professional standards in data management and research.
@OpenSAFELY why does this video look fake though? 👀
@OpenSAFELY Speak to the UK government about that.
![🚨JUST IN: Deception and Lies – Senator Babet's Bombshell Revelation on Covid Vaccination in Australia Senator Babet says that the Australian people were duped into believing that mRNA injections would protect them from Covid. But now, the data is showing that the vaccinated population is actually more vulnerable to the virus than the unvaccinated. Senator Babet: "The Australian people were initially told that mRNA injections would stop them getting infected with Covid, would stop them spreading it, and most importantly would stop them dying from it. We were told that we were selfish if we were not willing to be vaccinated and that we could kill grandma or kill grandpa. Around 97.5% of Australians over 16 followed the government advice and have had at least one dose of mRNA injection, yet the only data that accurately identifies the vaccination status of those who got Covid [...] showed quite clearly that the vaccinated are more likely to be infected, hospitalized, and die of Covid."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1638885872769679360/ext_tw_video_thumb/1638885713591640067/pu/img/cH16jGg7f4YV_p6n.jpg)
![Systematic literature reviews take 12-18 months to complete. Looks like AI is going to fully automate systematic reviews sooner than later. SciSpace ( SciSpace) just launched an autonomous AI agent that conducts a systematic literature review with a single prompt. Go to scispace[.]com and run the following prompt: "Conduct a systematic literature review on [your topic]" SciSpace agent will generate research questions based on the PICO framework. You can review these questions and edit them according to your specific requirements. The agent will also draft screening criteria that you can edit according to your needs. Then the agent asks you to select the databases you want to use and the date range for paper. After this step, everything is fully automated. The agent will search for papers in the relevant databases, it will combine and rerank the papers. Then it will start the title and abstract screening and include the papers that meet the include criteria. In the next step, it will download the full text of included papers and screen them followed by data extraction. Based on the extracted data, it generates a complete systematic literature review and also a PRISMA diagram. It will also give you a table of papers included along with the rational for including them. The only thing that is keeping AI agents to fully automate systematic literature reviews fields is the papers behind paywalls. Check out the agent at scispace[.]com and see if you find its review useful.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2043291805249351736/amplify_video_thumb/2043291736131383296/img/NhYopyJxHeEf3zPG.jpg)
![Oncologist Dr. William Makis describes getting attacked by the president of City of Hope cancer centers for publishing success stories using antiparasitics to treat turbo cancers: "These antiparasitics are being heavily attacked and are being suppressed every time I mention ivermectin, mebendazole, [and] fenbendazole. And I have hundreds of success stories...." This clip of Dr. Makis, a radiologist, oncologist, and cancer researcher, is taken from a panel discussion posted to the World Council for Health Rumble channel on November 24, 2025. ---------------Partial transcription of clip---------------- "So these antiparasitics are being heavily attacked, and are being suppressed every time I mention ivermectin, mebendazole, fenbendazole, and I have hundreds of success stories. I get attacked. I get attacked by mainstream doctors and mainstream oncologists. "And just going back to what Kevin McKernan said about this phenomenon of trying to retract papers, get good papers retracted, I've had this happen to me very recently. We published recently a paper on fenbendazole. Three cases of stage four cancer patients who had failed three or four or five lines of chemotherapy, and mainstream oncology regimens. These cancer patients were dying. They took fenbendazole and they became cancer free. And we followed them up, up to three years. They stayed cancer three for up to three years. So we had three cases. We published this paper a few months ago. This was only the second paper published on the antiparasitic fenbendazole in the past five years with human cases. The first one was published by Stanford University in 2021. And so they had published three cases in 2021. We published three cases in 2025. Within a month or two of the publication of our paper. Now it passed peer review and it was published. We were attacked by the editor of the paper, who's actually the president of the City of Hope cancer centers in the United States, in Atlanta, Chicago, and Phoenix. "This was Dr. Maurice [Maurie] Markman, President of City of Hope, so a big time oncologist, with a lot of, you know, big pharma funding behind him. He said he's going to pull the paper. And they didn't have a good reason to pull the paper. In fact, the reason that they were putting was that I was giving, you know, medical advice to other cancer patients with fenbendazole. And so that was some kind of a conflict of interest. And because, you know, that wasn't declared in the way they liked, that they were going to pull the paper. "And so, you know, this is an attack. We're going to see these attacks not just on Kevin McKernan and David Speicher's work in trying to make the link between Covid vaccines and these turbo cancers. But even those of us who are going to try to treat these patients, and help these patients and try to get that work published with antiparasitics and these turbo cancers, we're being attacked, and our papers are being attacked for retraction as well." #Fenbendazole #Ivermectin #Cancercure](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2072362082264047725/amplify_video_thumb/2072361878592933888/img/oHkZrV5xM-aB9mvY.jpg)
![Dr. John Campbell exposed that the government is HIDING data showing that Covid-19 shots are clearly associated with excess deaths. RUSSELL BRAND: “What … will be the single piece of data that provides a tipping point where the majority of people will say … we were lied to about this?” CAMPBELL: “The obvious one is correlating vaccination status against excess deaths.” “Now, the British government were given the opportunity to release this [data] just last month.” “They actually … said they weren’t going to release it.” “What we don’t know [in the data] is who had the vaccine and did they die?” “The government has REFUSED to release that data.” “We believe that that data has been released to the pharmaceutical industry.” “Bits of data have appeared … in Japan, for example, and also in Italy.” “It doesn’t look good.” “It looks like excess deaths were associated with vaccination.” Russell Brand John Campbell](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2023820239381598643/amplify_video_thumb/2021328849108353024/img/0504NKIfzFqLnpCD.jpg)
